TomPettyLives wrote:
I agree with a lot of these points- however- when one is tested many dozens of times coincidences are more likely to occur.
How many times has she been tested in the last 5 years? 1:1000 odds sound like a long shot. But if she’s been tested 300 times it’s actually a 33% chance of it happening. The shear volume of her tests speak volumes to me. If she had some abnormal tests and was missing tests that’s difference. But my understanding is she’s had zero abnormal or missed tests. If true that’s pretty compelling.
OK, so according to the USADA website, she has been tested 55 times over the last five years, plus an unspecified number of AIU tests.
That 33% chance figure that you came up with is wrong. I can't say what the exact figure is because I'd need a lot more information, but you're not taking into account the multiple probabilities that are involved here. Houlihan's version of events relies on:
1. Uncastrated pig meat making it into the food supply - an unlikely event given that almost all piglets in the US are castrated.
2. That meat actually containing nandrolone - remember, it CAN occur naturally in pigs but it doesn't necessarily, nor does it have to be in sufficient quantity.
3. That meat making it to the food truck she bought her burrito from.
4. That meat somehow getting into her burrito in sufficient quantities to trigger an adverse test - recall she didn't buy a pig meat burrito, so it managed to get into her beef burrito either through cross-contamination or by some meat being mixed. Also remember that according to the evidence that Houlihan's team appears to be using, that quantity appears to be around 300g of meat.
5. That Houlihan was tested exactly 10 hours after she consumed the meat - this is precisely the time period when the scientific paper said nandrolone of the level found in Houlihan would turn up in her system. If it was 24 hours later, her nandrolone levels would have returned to normal.
Each one of these are low-probability events, and every single one has to occur in order for Houlihan's theory to hold water. It's possible but extremely unlikely. The odds that she would be tested on any given day are around 1:30, but the chance that she gets tested on a day when all these other rare events also occurred? I think we're in the realms of lottery winner levels of luck (bad luck in this case).
As a thought experiment, follow this sequence of events as an explanation for an adverse drug test, but change the athlete's name to something like Mary Kiplagat. Be honest, and ask yourself how credible the story sounds.